You are on page 1of 32

Mineral Value Management A Multidimensional View of Value Creation from Mining

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013


In Collaboration with The Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
April 2013

World Economic Forum 2013 - All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system. The views expressed are those of certain participants in the discussion and do not necessarily reflect the views of all participants or of the World Economic Forum. REF 050413

Contents
3 Foreword 4 Executive Summary 5 RMDI The Story So Far 6 Mineral Value Management: The Context 7 Mineral Value Management: Creating a Shared Understanding of Value 9 Using Mineral Value Management 17 Implications for Stakeholders 18 The Way Forward 19 Appendix 19 Benchmarking Country Performance 23 Further Survey Results, Methodology and Respondent Details 25 Overview of Stakeholder Consultation 26 Acknowledgements 27 Project Team 27 Acronyms and Overview of Exhibits 28 Bibliography, Sources and Endnotes

Foreword
The importance of creating a responsible, sustainable approach to mineral development has never been clearer, as projects face mounting opposition from Conga in Peru to Oyu Tolgoi in Mongolia. While the role of mining in economic development is increasingly recognized, debate continues on how mining should be done, and a festering discontent shows the general lack of trust between stakeholders. With this backdrop, the World Economic Forum introduces this third milestone report as part of its Responsible Mineral Development Initiative (RMDI). In its first phase in 2010, the RMDI identified the key challenges facing responsible mineral development. Building on this, the Initiatives work in 2011 led to the identification of six building blocks that provide a constructive framework for the sector. The RMDI continues to provide a neutral, truly multistakeholder platform for the discussion and development of ideas capable of unlocking the potential socio-economic benefits of mining. During 2012, the RMDI focused on Mineral Value Management (MVM), a tool it has developed for enhancing understanding of the drivers of value in mining. This Report lays out the foundation of Mineral Value Management. It outlines the insights gleaned from a global survey and workshops on using the tool with over 300 stakeholders across four continents. The Forum hopes that this tool and the findings of this Report can trigger frank and open discussion on the issues that affect, unite and divide different stakeholders in the mining industry. The creation of this Report also involved extensive outreach and dialogue with members of the private sector, governments, the academic community, NGOs and multilateral organizations from around the world. The Forum is extremely grateful to the many stakeholders whose invaluable input and support for this global initiative made this report possible. In particular, the Forum would like to thank: The RMDI Advisory Group: Britt Banks (University of Colorado), Roland Haslehner (The Boston Consulting Group), Arlin Hackman (WWF - Canada), Gavin Hayman (Global Witness), Huguette Labelle (Transparency International), Kathryn McPhail and Kate Carmichael (International Council on Mining and Metals), Richard OBrien (Newmont Mining Corporation), Antonio A.M. Pedro (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa) and Tsagaan Puntsag (Office of the President of Mongolia). Industry Partners from the Mining & Metals Industry, and in particular the CEOs who served on the World Economic Forum Mining & Metals Steering Board in 2012: Tom Albanese (Chair), Cynthia Carroll, Mark Cutifani, Klaus Kleinfeld, Patrice T. Motsepe and Richard OBrien. Members of the Global Agenda Council on the Future of Mining & Metals: Anthony Andrews, Jorge Bande, Britt Banks, Edwin Basson, Beatriz Boza Dibos, David Clarke, Stephen Deposito III, Marketa Evans, R. Anthony Hodge, Janet Kong, Huguette Labelle, Anna Littleboy, Bruce McKenney, Henry Medina, Ligia Noronha, Antonio A.M. Pedro, Michael H. Solomon, Teng Liliang and Tsagaan Puntsag. The Forum also extends thanks to The Boston Consulting Group, which served as project knowledge partner for both the 2011 and 2012 phases of the RMDI, and in particular to Martin Hayden, who worked as Project Manager in 2012.

Alex Wong Senior Director, Head of Centre for Business Engagement

Michael Tost Associate Director, Head of Mining & Metals Industry

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Executive Summary

Mining is a key driver of global economic growth, capable of creating long-term positive impact on lives, societies and nations. Although it has the potential to transform the economic prospects of mineral-rich developing countries, governments and communities are increasingly questioning the role of this sector. Debates over the proper allocation of costs and benefits, growing resource nationalism and conflict over new projects reflect waning trust between stakeholders and lack of effective engagement mechanisms. This makes the World Economic Forums Responsible Mineral Development Initiative (RMDI) more relevant than ever. The RMDI was established in 2010 to develop a better understanding of the challenges and complexities involved in making mineral development responsible and sustainable, and to identify and pilot potential solutions to address these. Phase I involved worldwide consultation and analysis to identify the key challenges. Phase II, started in 2011, aimed to develop practical responses to these challenges. While no silver bullet solution was identified, six building blocks for progress were laid out. Phase III the subject of this report focused on two of the building blocks: a shared understanding of the benefits and costs of mineral development, and collaborative processes for stakeholder engagement, focusing on designing a multistakeholder approach to develop a better understanding of different groups needs, expectations and priorities. This is important because disputes are more likely when stakeholders are poorly informed about each others perceptions and aspirations in relation to the costs and benefits of mining.

Mineral Value Management


Mineral Value Management (MVM) is an RMDI-developed tool designed to enhance mutual understanding of the holistic drivers of value from mining, and to provide a means to measure and communicate the needs and expectations of various stakeholders. It recognizes that a broad view of value is required, one which: Considers the full range of impacts cultural, psychological and environmental, as well as the more familiar (and readily measurable) economic and financial ones Considers both direct and indirect impacts, i.e. the multiplier and diversification impacts that go beyond the mining industry Acknowledges that the value created from mining can take the form of both benefits and costs MVM is based on seven dimensions that drive value creation for all stakeholders: Fiscal (tax, royalties, etc) and legal/ regulatory environment Employment and skills Environment and biodiversity implications Social cohesion, cultural and socioeconomic implications Procurement and local supply chain Beneficiation and downstream industry Infrastructure During Phase III, MVM was used to conduct a global survey and guide discussions in four multistakeholder workshops. The key findings from these interactions included: Different stakeholder groups and countries are starting out with different perceptions and aspirations regarding mining. There is general consensus on the most important dimensions of value. What drives value for stakeholders and countries within each dimension is different. Beyond the top few dimensions, stakeholders and regions differ in their assessment of which ones should be accorded greater priority. Areas with potential to deliver benefits for all stakeholders exist, but require a coordinated approach.

From the findings, the need for establishing trust and collaboration between various stakeholders becomes clear. Open, constructive and ongoing dialogue is important to allow discussion on the issues outlined above. To be effective, this dialogue must: Address stakeholders initial perceptions and expectations, in addition to using studies focused on data-based findings Focus on creating a better understanding of stakeholder groups and their drivers of value Identify areas where stakeholder priorities align and differ Invest in educating all stakeholders including companies, governments, communities and civil society about the nature, sources and timing of benefits, costs and risks of mining Explore ways to increase collaboration within and between stakeholder groups

What Comes Next?


The Forum plans to pilot MVM at a country, regional and local-community levels in 2013, as part of multistakeholder dialogues aimed at identifying, debating and taking action on issues related to advancing responsible mineral development. Dialogues are already being established in Chile, Peru and Guinea. Other countries of focus include Mongolia and Mozambique. Section 6 outlines five key questions that individual stakeholders could ask themselves in relation to these findings.

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

RMDI The Story So Far

The RMDI was established to identify and provide guidance on the key challenges around responsible mining development. Phase I in 2010 included interviews with more than 250 stakeholders from 13 countries on their perceptions of these challenges. The objective was to understand what works and what does not, where discontent and frustration commonly arise, and where improvements are possible. The main problems were identified as: Limited expertise and institutional capacity of governments, civil society and companies Insufficient stakeholder inclusion in decision-making processes Opaque negotiation and development processes Incomplete compliance, monitoring and dispute-resolution components Phase II in 2011 developed a deeper understanding of the challenges and identified constructive, practical responses to them. Workshops in six continents underpinned further research and consultation. This phase showed that no single silver bullet solution to the challenges exists. Instead, six building blocks were identified that address common challenges and provide guidance on practical actions to take (see Exhibit 1). Each building block was supported by practical examples of good practice such as Alcoas creation of a local development council in Brazil; Rio Tintos publication of its tax and royalty payments in 28 countries; and Mongolias national dialogue platform. A survey found across-theboard support for the building blocks, with particular enthusiasm for training and development, collaborative socio-economic studies and the establishment of effective dialogue platforms.1 While work in Phase III was intended to support stable, sustainable and responsible mining, events in 2012 gave it immediate as well as long-term relevance, as discussed in the following chapter.

Exhibit 1: Six Building Blocks of Responsible Mineral Development

1 Progressive capacity-building and knowledgesharing 6 Early and comprehensive dispute management 2 A shared understanding of costs and benets

Towards responsible mineral development

Thorough compliance monitoring and enforcement of commitments 4 Transparent processes and arrangements

Collaborative processes for stakeholder engagement

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Mineral Value Management: The Context


The events of the last few years have heightened the need for stakeholders involved in mineral development to find common ground to understand each others needs, perceptions and priorities. In 2012, significant resource-related disagreements flared up in almost every significant mining region, from Mongolia to Chile and from South Africa to Indonesia. Some, notably in South Africa, escalated sufficiently to migrate from the financial to the news sections of the national and global media (see Exhibit 2). This convergence of events is no accident. It is the outcome of tensions created by diverging stakeholder expectations and poorly managed consultations intended to resolve them. Many governments are under pressure from their citizens to ensure they benefit appropriately from the mining industry. This includes looking beyond royalty and tax revenues. As a South African government adviser says, Im not sure that we want companies that are just going to dig holes. We want companies that are going to make those linkages and build our economy for the future, post-mining.2 Local communities are increasingly aware that they typically bear a disproportionate share of mining impacts and costs. They are becoming more vocal in demanding larger shares of benefits as compensation and a more meaningful share in decision-making. Companies are operating in a new normal, with falling commodity prices putting pressure on operating margins and higher capital costs leading to budget overruns in many expansion and greenfield projects. They are consequently looking to generate more value from existing investments and being more selective about new ones. For uninterrupted progress towards a sustainable model of responsible mining, it is essential that stakeholders understand each others needs and objectives, as well as the value the sector can realistically hope to deliver. Disagreements based on honest differences of interest and priority cannot be eliminated from an industry as complex as mining, but those based on distrust arising from mutual ignorance and misunderstanding can at the very least be minimized. Consultation with stakeholders in 2010 and 2011 found that, for this to happen, all stakeholders must be able to engage in open, honest dialogue on their hopes, priorities, fears and expectations.
6 Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

However, to be an effective platform for practical change, dialogue must be informed by an understanding of how the mining industry creates value. It must also recognize that the spin-offs go beyond the merely monetary and can take the form of costs as well as benefits. Consultation in all three RMDI phases has shown the absence of this understanding as a serious stumbling block. It leads to distrust based on the view that other stakeholders are garnering more than their fair share of benefits. The RMDI has identified four main stumbling blocks to understanding: Debates are focused on specific or easily quantifiable dimensions. Many debates, like that over Australias Minerals Resource Rent Tax, are focused on the structure of taxation and royalty regimes, and the amount paid. They largely ignore other drivers of value, especially those difficult to quantify. A mismatch between expectations and reality exists. Stakeholders often dont understand how long a project will take to develop and the different levels of activity required at each stage. This leads to unrealistic expectations regarding timing and benefits. One mining executive complained of expectations of turning something into the Pilbara overnight, but companies are not even past the viability stage.3

The right stakeholders have not been consulted, and/or their objectives have been misunderstood. Local communities are often ignored and/or the right people are not consulted, which means their real concerns and objectives are misunderstood. Also, where miners discussions with government are limited to mining ministries as is often the case opportunities to contribute beyond direct taxes and employment may not be explored. Value is presumed to be a zero-sum game. While some trade-offs between groups are likely to be necessary, debate often focuses on these at the expense of opportunities to create mutual value. As a culmination of its work, Phase III of the RMDI developed the Mineral Value Management tool to improve understanding of stakeholder expectations and objectives in relation to value.

Exhibit 2: Examples of Recent Conflicts and Policy Debates


Source: Press releases, various

USA Continuing debate over need to reform Mining Law of 1872

Guinea Ongoing review of mining contracts and recent strikes at mining operations

Namibia Transferring new mining and exploration to a state-owned company

Mongolia Ongoing discussions in relation to issues with Oyu Tolgoi project

Peru Local stakeholder protests against proposed Conga mine Chile Increasing opposition from local communities, including legal action

Indonesia Introduction of mineral ore export restrictions from 6 May 2012

Australia High prole public debate on Minerals Resource Rent Tax Zimbabwe "Indigenization" policy will force foreign rms to "cede" a 51% stake to locals South Africa Ongoing public debate on mining labour issues and resource nationalization

Argentina Provincial governors demand larger share of mines

Mineral Value Management: Creating a Shared Understanding of Value


MVM is a survey tool designed to be used in multistakeholder workshops to enhance mutual understanding of how mining creates value and provides a means to measure and communicate the needs and expectations of different stakeholders. It has been tested with over 200 participants in workshops across four continents. MVM is not an index or measure of value creation, nor is it a best-practice guide for governments, industry or other stakeholders. But it can be used in parallel with other tools to offer stakeholders information on perspectives and beliefs to be used alongside more concrete economic and socio-economic data. For example, the Forum is working with the International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) to enhance multistakeholder dialogue in Peru. Analysis of stakeholder perceptions and expectations derived from the MVM study will be used along with a recent update of ICMMs Partnerships for Development Toolkit as a basis for consultation and dialogue with Peruvian stakeholders aimed at building a responsible mining platform for action. MVM takes a holistic approach to value. Too often discussions are very narrowly focused on the economic and the financial above all, on what can be quantified in monetary terms. A broader view of value is needed, one that: Considers the full range of impacts cultural, psychological and environmental, as well as the more familiar (and readily measurable) economic and financial ones Considers both direct and indirect impacts, i.e. the multiplier and diversification impacts that go beyond the mining industry Acknowledges that the value created from mining can take the form of both benefits and costs MVM was developed based on analysis of stakeholder feedback in RMDI Phase III, which identified seven dimensions that drive value for all stakeholders in the mining industry (see Exhibit 3). 1. Fiscal (tax, royalties, etc.) and legal/ regulatory environment Mining-related income can account for over 20% of government revenue in some mineral-rich nations.4 For miners, a stable legal and regulatory environment is essential for attractiveness as an investment destination, while for government and community stakeholders, securing a fair share of mineral revenue and the effectiveness with which revenue is spent are of central importance. For all stakeholders, a commitment to transparency can help prevent the misappropriation of revenues and the economic distortions caused by corruption. 2. Employment and skills While mining is a relatively small direct employer it rarely accounts for more than 2% of the jobs in any economy5 multiplier effects can create additional employment ranging from three to nine times6 the direct employment. These come from promoting greater internal linkages between mining and other sectors of the local economy, from mining employees spending and from the generation of associated employment in other dimensions (e.g. procurement and supply chain, and beneficiation and downstream). The size and type of employment generated varies at each stage of mining development, with numbers generally peaking during the construction phase. The mining sector also requires a range of skilled resources (e.g. engineers, geologists, environmental and social scientists, qualified tradespeople) that can help to raise the general skill-set of the population.

Exhibit 3: Seven Dimensions of Value

Fiscal (tax, royalties, etc.) & legal/regulatory environment Diversication & Multiplier Impacts 2 Employment & skills

7 Infrastructure

6 Beneciation & downstream industry

Direct Mining 3 Environment & biodiversity implications

5 Procurement & local supply chain

4 Social cohesion, cultural and socio-economic implications

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

3. Environment and biodiversity implications If not managed properly mining can have adverse effects on the environment and biodiversity in host regions, and employment dependent on living resources. Implementation of measures to prevent, mitigate and offset impacts across the entire life cycle of a mine from exploration to post-mine rehabilitation can help minimize these effects. In many cases, the positive economic benefits of mining can also help to relieve pressure on biodiversity and the environment by reducing the amount of destructive deforestation and poaching activities. Some companies have committed to a goal of a net positive impact on biodiversity,7 recognizing that this can drive value by helping them obtain a social license to operate while helping build a positive reputation. 4. Social cohesion, cultural and socioeconomic implications Host communities can bear a disproportionate share of negative impacts from mining, such as migrant labour and population displacement, destruction of local heritage and lack of economic opportunities after the mines closure. However, benefits can include improvements to local services and social infrastructure (health, education, housing), as well as the creation of non-mining businesses which can help industrialize the local economy. Investing in the community and providing accessible and fair mechanisms to address concerns and grievances can help mining companies obtain a social license to operate and avoid conflicts and disruptions to operations.

5. Procurement and local supply chain Mining generates large procurement and supply expenditure on goods and services as varied as catering, construction and accountancy. An efficient and reliable supply chain is vital for the profitability of a mining project. Establishing a local supply industry can also result in the creation of lateral industries leading to diversification benefits for a country. 6. Beneficiation and downstream industry The processing and refining of raw materials and the manufacture of endproducts can generate benefits for a country. Downstream industries may also result in lateral industries leading to similar diversification benefits as procurement. However, many companies do not participate in downstream processing activities, and for those that do, some structural factors may make downstream processing in a particular country unattractive or uneconomical. 7. Infrastructure Infrastructure such as road, rail and power can account for up to 80% of mining development costs,8 and the quality and efficiency of this infrastructure impacts the overall profitability of the sector. If properly planned, this infrastructure may also be used by other industries and/or by the public, creating a positive multiplier impact. It should be noted that since MVM focuses on drivers of value and is not a measure of total value, it does not explicitly include some areas of the economy which benefit significantly from mining, particularly exports and foreign direct investment, which are major beneficiaries in many mineral-rich countries.

Structural and Enabling Factors


To create an understanding of how value is created in each of the dimensions, it is useful to think about two types of factors: Structural, including a countrys resource base and geography, and its current levels of skills, technology and infrastructure Enabling, including the institutional, regulatory and political environment, and the behaviour and attitude of different stakeholder groups Structural factors determine comparative advantage or disadvantage at the country level. They are not necessarily fixed but generally take a longer time to change. Enabling factors include shareholder attitudes and the institutional, political and operating environment. These can generally be altered more quickly than structural factors. They help explain how countries with similar structural factors can produce different value outcomes. Discussing structural and enabling factors as part of MVM gives stakeholders a deeper understanding of their own potential and limitations. It allows intelligent prioritization by distinguishing areas where improvements can be made relatively easily and faster from those that require longerterm effort and planning.

Exhibit 4: Structural and Enabling Factors

Inherent nature of a country, its resource base and extractives industry Structural Country's current stage of development and maturity of minerals industry

Type, location and size of ore bodies Population size, geography & climate Global commodity cycle Timing of mine cycle Levels of skills & technology Country infrastructure (soft & hard) Size and maturity of minerals industry Diversification of economy Human and institutional capacity Structure & complexity of government Integration of mining into economic planning Ability to monitor and enforce laws & regulations Levels of accountability Skill building and education Time frame of investors Willingness to engage in partnership approaches Commitment to responsible development Levels of social debate Level of transparency Consultation and collaboration Countrys attitude towards mining Levels of influence of different stakeholder groups

Structure & capacity of government and institutional environment

Enabling

Capacity & willingness of private sector

Levels of trust & collaboration and influence of stakeholders

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Using Mineral Value Management

Phase III of the RMDI used MVM to conduct a global survey and guide discussions in four multistakeholder workshops. The survey covered around 300 stakeholders from 37 countries. They were polled either through the workshops or electronically. Respondents were asked for their views on the value being created by mining in their own countries relative to other countries today, and on where they thought their countries would be in 10 years time. They were also asked to nominate which of the seven dimensions of value they saw as priorities for their countries (Refer to Appendix for further details). Respondents were divided roughly equally between governments, commodity producers and others (NGOs, academics, international agencies and local communities). Due to limited-scale polling conducted in this phase, local communities were underrepresented in the others category. This is an acknowledged weakness of the survey, as the views of this stakeholder group are vital in creating a shared understanding of value. This weakness should be addressed with additional polling in country-specific or regional surveys using MVM.

Overall, the survey and workshop discussions showed that: Different stakeholder groups and countries are starting out with different perceptions and aspirations regarding mining. There is general consensus on the most important dimensions of value. What drives value for stakeholders and countries within each dimension is different. Beyond the top few dimensions, stakeholders and regions differ in their assessment of which ones should be accorded greater priority. Areas with potential to deliver benefits for all stakeholders exist, but require a coordinated approach.

It should be noted that because the survey tested stakeholders perception of value relative to the performance of other countries, the survey scores were all positive. This does not mean mining always creates a net benefit across all dimensions. As discussed in the previous section, if not managed carefully, mining can have a detrimental impact in some areas, particularly in the environment, biodiversity, social cohesion, cultural and socio-economic dimensions.

I. Stakeholders and countries are starting out with different perceptions and aspirations
The survey showed that opinions on current and future value creation differ between stakeholder groups.

Exhibit 5: Perceptions of Current and Potential Value Creation African Respondents1


Source: RMDI survey conducted between October 2012 and January 2013

Governments
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills

Commodity producers
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills Infrastructure

Others2
Fiscal, leg. & reg Employment & skills

Downstream & beneficiation Procurement & supply chain

0 +2 +4

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

Downstream & beneficiation Procurement & supply chain

0 +2 +4

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

Downstream & beneficiation Procurement & supply chain

0 +2 +4

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

Perceived value today


Key :

Expected future value (In 10 years)

0 country ranks lowest in the world for value creation in this dimension 2 average value creation in this dimension 4 country ranks among the highest in the world for value creation in this dimension

Respondents were asked to rate how much value was being created currently in each dimension for their stakeholder group, and the potential value in 10 years time relative to other mineral-rich countries 2 Stakeholder group Others includes NGOs, academics, international agencies and local communities
1

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Exhibit 5 shows that African governments are generally less positive than other stakeholders about current value creation, but significantly more positive about the future (i.e. have higher aspirations). African commodity producers generally think more value is being created today, but perceive that future growth will not be as high, especially in the dimensions of Procurement and Supply Chain and Downstream and Beneficiation. (See Appendix 2 for further results by region and stakeholder.)

This shows that stakeholders are starting with different points of view and have different hopes and aspirations. A platform for open, transparent dialogue about these differences is a necessary starting point for building trust and lasting partnerships. This platform should be supported by both databased studies and a clear understanding of stakeholder expectations and perceptions. Exhibit 6 also shows that expectations vary depending on a countrys stage of economic development. The exhibit is based on categorization used by the World Economic Forums Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), which divides countries between factor-driven, efficiency-driven and innovation-driven economies.

Exhibit 6: Perceptions of Current and Potential Value Creation by Country Type1

In line with economic theory of the stages of development, the GCI assumes that factor-driven economies mainly compete on the basis of their factor endowments, primarily low-skilled labour and natural resources. Efficiency-driven economies need to develop more efficient production processes and compete on factors such as a more skilled workforce and an efficient and well-functioning labour and goods market so that productivity can keep up with rising wages. Innovation-driven economies have higher general wages and associated standards of living, and need to produce new technologies and more sophisticated production processes or business models in order to keep productivity at a high level.9
Source: RMDI survey conducted between October 2012 and January 2013

'Factor-driven' countries 2
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills

'Efciency-driven' countries 2
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills

'Innovation-driven' countries 2
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills

Downstream & beneciation Procurement & supply chain

0 +2 +4

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

Downstream & beneciation Procurement & supply chain

0 +2 +4

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

Downstream & beneciation Procurement & supply chain

0 +2 +4

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

Perceived value today

Expected future value (in 10 years)

Key : 0 country ranks lowest in the world for value creation in this dimension 2 average value creation in this dimension 4 country ranks amongst the highest in the world for value creation in this dimension
Respondents were asked to rate how much value was being created currently in each dimension for their stakeholder group, and the potential value in 10 years time relative to other mineral-rich countries 2 Country classification based on World Economic Forums Global Competitiveness Index
1

This makes it unsurprising that stakeholders in factor-driven countries have higher expectations of the future benefits from mining, since resources are likely to be a major driver of their economic growth in the short to medium term. However, consultation during Phase III of RMDI also highlighted how important it is that all stakeholders, particularly from factor-driven countries, develop an understanding of the time frame for and the likely sources of future value creation. Governments and other stakeholders must
10 Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

think beyond fiscal, legal and regulatory issues to consider all dimensions, and then focus on those likely to yield benefits. This should be based, in part, on a clear understanding of which structural and enabling factors are likely to have the most positive effects. Comparing performance with other countries at a similar stage of economic development can assist in identifying the largest areas of opportunity. Using the GCI is one way this can be done.

The MVM tool will also be used in multistakeholder roundtables to conduct benchmarking to enable comparison of country performance, as outlined in the Appendix.

Structural and Enabling Factors for Factor-driven Economies


The GCI identifies four main pillars as the primary drivers of competitiveness for factor-driven economies: well-functioning public and private institutions (pillar 1), welldeveloped infrastructure (pillar 2), stable macroeconomic environment (pillar 3) and a healthy workforce that has received at least basic education (pillar 4). Pillar 1 can be one enabling factor for resource-rich nations in attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), along with other factors such as size and growth of the economy, openness to trade and economic stability. Exhibit 7 demonstrates some evidence of a relationship between the two. Between 2006 and 2011, Zambias compounded annual net FDI inflows increased by 23% and Mongolias by 33%. This coincided with an improvement in the quality of both countries public institutions (as measured by the GCI). By contrast, Mauritania, whose public institutions were deemed to have declined in quality, suffered a 34% decline in annual net inflows.11

Exhibit 7: Enabling Factors Quality of Public Institutions

Foreign Direct Investment net inflows ( BoP, current US$ m) 1


10.000
FDI CAGR % '06-'11 ~0% 16% ~1%

2.000
33% 10% 23%

0 2,0 2,5

21%

-34%

= 2006 = 2011

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5
2

Quality of Public Institutions


Cambodia Peru Zambia Zimbabwe Thailand Mauritania

Mongolia Colombia

1 2

Source: World Bank database Based on World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-12, Institutional Quality Index

II. There is general consensus on the most important dimensions of value


The survey asked respondents to rank the seven dimensions of value in order of priority.
Exhibit 8: Ranking of Priority Dimensions (Based on Percentage of Times Ranked 1st or 2nd)1
Source: RMDI survey conducted between October 2012 and January 2013

'Factor-Driven' countries 2
60 60 60

'Efficiency-Driven' countries 2
53 44 60

'Innovation-Driven' countries 2
52 38

40

32

40 31 20

34

40

35

20

13

20 7 6 0 Downstream Procurement Employment Employment Social Social Fiscal Fiscal

0 Infrastructure Procurement Employment Fiscal

Top 3 priorities
1 2

Ranked least number of times as priority

Respondents were asked to rank dimensions in order of priority for their country data represents the %age of times that each dimension was ranked 1 or 2 Country classification based on World Economic Forums Global Competitiveness Index
Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013 11

The fiscal, legal and regulatory dimension was the highest priority for every stakeholder group in every region. This is not surprising given its importance for all stakeholders and prominent profile in recent years, with many governments proposing changes to taxation and royalty regimes as well as ownership structures, and populations in some countries becoming more aware of the perceived corruption and lack of transparency associated with mining revenues. Socio-economic, social cohesion and cultural implications were given the third highest priority by all respondents. Some countries rated this dimension as particularly important for example, 64% of the 28 respondents from Peru rated it among the top two. This result reflects growing recognition that attention to social and cultural issues is vital to the future of a sustainable and responsible resource development industry. With 37% of commodity producers rating it among the two leading priorities, it is clear that they see performance in relation to these issues as a driver of shareholder value. After all, to downplay or ignore these factors increases the risk of project delays, disputes and disruption of operations. Unsurprisingly, employment also ranked high it ranked as the second highest priority in innovation-driven countries and third highest for factor-driven and efficiency-driven countries. Infrastructure ranked second for factor-driven countries, showing once again that priorities vary depending on a countrys stage of economic development.

Across countries and stakeholder groups, procurement and supply was the dimension least often rated among the top two priorities. Yet there is compelling evidence that an effective procurement and supply industry can generate value for all stakeholders. Countries like Chile and South Africa have used upstream or supply activity to stimulate the development of globally competitive companies and to increase economic linkages (see sidebar).

Upstream or Downstream?
Policy-makers have historically favoured downstream development, seeing it as offering greater potential for diversification and more likely to result in significant employment growth. Mining has typically been seen as an enclave industry, with less likelihood of technology spillovers that could drive growth in other industries. Consequently, support for upstream or supplier activities has often been limited to policies that mandate minimum levels of local supply. However, new studies such as Making the Most of the Commodities Programme by the Open University and the University of Cape Town suggest upstream activities generate attractive diversification and employment growth opportunities. Suppliers have the advantage of being close to customers, whereas downstream user markets are often distant. Intermediate products and services can offer opportunities to countries with varying capabilities, in sectors ranging from the relatively low-skilled such as catering and security to the highly sophisticated equipment manufacturing. In addition, mining companies increasingly outsource non-core activities, thereby expanding the total supplier market.12

III. What drives value for stakeholders in each dimension is different


While stakeholders are aligned in their selection of some priority areas, this is not, as recent disputes demonstrate, the same as agreement on how best to create value. For example, while all stakeholder groups rated fiscal, legal and regulatory issues as the highest priority dimension, opinions diverged when they were asked which enabling factors were most important for this dimension (Exhibit 9). The differences were not limited to stakeholder groups; different regions also had different priorities. For example, 59% of respondents from Africa rated transparency of arrangements between government and private sector as a top-three priority, while only 29% of Latin American respondents did. This is not a surprising finding, as different stakeholders have varying needs and objectives in relation to each dimension. For example, commodity producers main expectation for employment and skills could be a highly-skilled and efficient workforce, whereas local communities are likely to focus more on how many employees are sourced from their area.

Exhibit 9: Fiscal, Legal and Regulatory Factors (Percentage of Times Ranked in Top 3)1
Source: RMDI survey conducted between October 2012 and January 2013

% times ranked in top 3 1


60 53 56

40 30

40

43

29

20

15 7 9

0
Government Commodity producers Others 2 Government Commodity producers Others 2 Government Commodity producers Others 2

Effectiveness of compliance & monitoring

Political stability & attitude towards mining in the country

Attitude & influence of mining companies and investors

1 2

Respondents were asked to rank the top three enabling factors which they believe have the biggest impact on the relevant dimension Stakeholder group Others includes NGOs, academics, international agencies and local communities

12

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

This does not mean different groups are completely misaligned and discussions must be all about tradeoffs. It does, however, highlight the need to build a better understanding of stakeholders circumstances, needs and objectives. This is particularly the case with local communities, where mining companies are increasingly aware that creating value is about more than financial costs and benefits. For 63% of the commodity producers polled, understanding the social and economic make-up of different groups was a top-three enabling factor and a further 75% ranked consultation and collaboration with affected communities similarly. In contrast, only 16% put level of social spending by mining companies in the top three. More and more mining companies are seeking to develop insight into the beliefs, traditions and cultures of local communities or, as one mining executive put it, finding ways to understand their stories.13 To be successful in this, miners need expertise in areas such as anthropology and sociology, which are very different skill-sets from those they have traditionally employed. They also need to understand the complexity and heterogeneity of local communities affected by mining development.

Understanding Local Communities


Dialogue is only effective if those taking part have legitimacy and are genuinely representative of their particular stakeholder groups. Analysis in Phases I and II of RMDI showed this does not always happen, creating the potential for misunderstandings and discontent. For example, every local community is likely to exhibit: Social, economic and demographic differences, such as different worker origins (native or migrant), and differences in gender, age, education and health, as well as traditional means of livelihood Differences in access to services such as housing, water, utilities, schools and hospitals Disparity in access to mining-based employment, for example, due to skills, gender, distance from the mine and access to public transport Varying levels of exposure to possible mining-related impacts, such as overcrowding and pollution Variations in their previous experience and history with mining, which influence their current views This diversity in communities means no right set of responses is available and no single representative can speak for a community. This is particularly true in relation to gender, where male and female community members often differ in their priorities and issues. Miners and governments must be alert to this and tailor their responses accordingly. For miners, wide-ranging consultation is a precondition for gaining a social license to operate. Such consultation is essential to understand the highest priorities of the community and ensure that the local population has access to the benefits (jobs, training, skills, services and business opportunities) that mining can deliver.

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

13

IV. Beyond the top few dimensions, stakeholders and regions differ in their assessment of which dimensions of value should be accorded greater priority
Governments and commodity producers differ sharply in their views on the importance of downstream activities for value creation. For example, while more than a quarter of government respondents in Africa selected this as a top-two priority, fewer than one in 20 commodity producers agreed.

While this is not surprising not all mining companies engage in downstream activities it highlights yet another area where frank, constructive dialogue based on mutual understanding would be valuable. Governments in particular need to understand if downstream activities are likely to create value for them. Understanding the structural factors that can determine this is very important, as the sidebar on Malaysias rubber industry shows. In other areas, differences depend on geographies. In Latin America, 34% of commodity producers rated infrastructure

in the top two, compared with 19% of government stakeholders and 20% of others. However, in North America, Australia and Europe, 29% of government stakeholders and 20% of others considered it a top-two priority, while fewer than one in 10 commodity producers agreed. The lesson is that multinational mining companies cannot assume that what has worked in one country will work in another, but must take time to understand local stakeholder expectations. They also need to make their own priorities clear, because these might not be the same as those of the host governments or communities.

Exhibit 10: Stakeholder Ranking of Downstream and Infrastructure (based on percentage of times ranked 1st or 2nd)1
Source: RMDI survey conducted between October 2012 and January 2013

Beneciation & downstream


-85% 30 27 -61% 20 15 19 20 19 40 +79% 34 30

Infrastructure

-69% 29

20

20

10 4 0
Government Commodity producers Others 2

7 3

10

0
Government Commodity producers Others 2 Government Commodity producers Others 2 Government Commodity producers Others 2

Africa
1 2 3

Latin America

Latin America

Other 3

Respondents were asked to rank dimensions in order of priority for their country data represents the % of times that downstream was ranked 1 or 2 Stakeholder group Others includes NGOs, academics, international agencies and local communities Other refers to Australia, North America and Europe

Why Your Rubber Gloves Are Made in Malaysia


Countries need to be selective in supporting downstream industries, based on an understanding of the structural factors required to be globally competitive. Malaysias success in rubber gloves provides a good example. Malaysia produces 60% of the worlds exported rubber gloves, a position it has built since the 1980s when it was the worlds second largest producer of natural rubber, behind only Indonesia.14 Malaysia achieved its leading position partly because it enjoys a structural advantage in the latex market thanks to being a natural rubber producer. Natural rubber accounts for 50-60% of the cost of rubber glove production, compared with 10-15% for tyres (although the latter actually consumes more natural rubber as an industry), giving a major producer a clear input cost advantage. Malaysia was also able to take advantage of another structural factor the attractive longterm global dynamics of the rubber glove market at the time it established the industry.
14 Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Increasing awareness of HIV and other global health campaigns led to 12% annual growth in demand for latex medical equipment from 1989 to 2011.15 In addition to understanding the industry cost structure and the long-term attractiveness of the market, countries need to take

into account several other factors when analysing their ability to compete in particular downstream activities. These include: the size and attractiveness of the domestic market, non-tariff barriers to trade, transportation costs to the main export markets and whether the country has advantages in other input costs such as energy and labour.

Exhibit 11: Industry Cost Structures (Rubber Gloves versus Tyres)


Source: Alliance Research, Rubber Glove sector initiation Feb 2012, CIMB Research Report Rubber Gloves Packing a Punch July 2009, BCG

% cost breakdown
100 20-30% 80 10% 60 10% 20-30% Direct labour 15-30% Other

40 50-60% 20 10-15% 0 Latex rubber gloves Tyres Natural rubber 35-45% Other raw materials

V. Areas with potential to deliver benefits for all stakeholders exist, but require a coordinated approach
Despite differences in perceptions and priorities, the survey and consultations revealed significant opportunities for stakeholders to work together to create mutual value, especially in the areas of procurement and supply chain, infrastructure and employment. For example, 60% of stakeholders rated leveraging infrastructure for broader use as more likely to create value than improving the direct mining infrastructure in the country.

Exhibit 12 shows that success requires high levels of coordination between stakeholders. This includes coordination between different government levels and ministries and also between mining companies and other industries such as infrastructure operators, especially in developing cluster approaches to infrastructure and supply chains. It also requires the creation of partnerships that can last beyond an election cycle. The sidebars on Corridors of Power and Chilean copper are two examples of infrastructure and local supplier development whose success depended on significant levels of coordination between stakeholders.

Exhibit 12: Top 3 Enabling Factors Nominated by Respondents1


Source: RMDI survey conducted between October 2012-January 2013

Employment & skills % times factor ranked in top 3


80 66 60 65 51 60

Procurement & supply chain % times factor ranked in top 3


80 65 65 55 60

Infrastructure % times factor ranked in top 3


80 78 78

55

40

40

40

20

20

20

0
Investment in industryspecic training Integration of mining into broader economic planning Willingness of mining companies to commit to local programs

0
Investment in industryspecic training Willingness of Integration of mining mining into companies to broader invest in local economic procurment planning

0
Stability of investment environment Capacity to integrate infrastructure solutions into economic planning Levels of coordination between government departments

Factors requiring coordination between stakeholders


1

Respondents were asked to rank the top three enabling factors which they believe have the biggest impact on the relevant dimension

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

15

Corridors of Power: Incorporating Mining Outcomes into Economic Planning


Many mining projects require substantial infrastructure, whose cost can be a barrier to project viability. At the same time, infrastructure is central to economic development, but many mineral-rich developing countries lack the finance, skill and technology to develop integrated national solutions. This raises the possibility of partnerships to deliver win-win infrastructure outcomes that: Link key infrastructure elements such as power, railways and ports Integrate mining requirements with regional economic development needs Share financing between public and private entities Span national borders at times Governments and communities benefit from accelerated infrastructure development, increased economic linkages and longer-term diversification, as well as broader economic impacts such as increased tax revenues and employment. For companies, integrated infrastructure development can lower capital costs, potentially turning a marginally profitable opportunity into a viable project. To work they need: Coordination within and across stakeholder groups Long-term stakeholder commitment Integrated economic planning Extensive local and environmental consultation Plans for operation and maintenance after mining has finished or the infrastructure has been handed over by the mining company South Africa and Mozambiques Maputo Development Corridor (MDC) is a good example of integrated infrastructure development. Initiated in 1995, the MDC is the highest-profile project in the South African Spatial Development Initiative. Running between the north-eastern provinces of South Africa and Maputo, Mozambiques capital and main port, it provides an essential link in South Africas coal, vanadium, stainless steel and petrochemicals production. Founded by the two countries transport ministers but involving private companies in mining and other industries, the corridor was constructed on a build-operate-transfer basis, with a 30-year concession to a consortium of private companies. Areas close to the corridor have seen rates of growth and employment above the South African mean, with around 5,000 new jobs created. Mozambican producers have gained entry into South Africa, port development at Maputo has aided access to global markets, and tourism has grown.16
16 Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Chile Finds Copper-bottomed Value Upstream17


Chile accounts for approximately onethird of global copper output and mining is a significant contributor to the Chilean economy. Chilean governments have supported the development of the mining services and supply industry since the 1990s, offering skills training to local suppliers and promoting linkages through the national copper company, Codelco. The mining cluster it promoted in Region II worked to the extent that by 2004, 80% of Escondidas procurement was from Chile and nearly half from the region. A public-private collaboration involving Codelco and BHP Billiton was established in 2009 to provide further support to local suppliers, who are encouraged to develop innovative responses to local miningrelated issues such as shortages of water, energy and skills. The aim is to create 250 world-class suppliers defined as selling more than 30% internationally and having standards equal to the industry leader by 2020. Universities and technology centres also participate through collaboration with suppliers. Early indications are good. By December 2012, 55 suppliers were participating and have shown improvement in terms of growth, export and their safety, environmental and labour standards. Early successes include Prodinsa, which developed a solution that increased the useful life of cables of electromechanical shovels by 40% and has sold the solution to Perus Antamina mine.

Implications for Stakeholders


The key findings from the survey and consultations in Phase III of RMDI are that different stakeholder groups have different starting points, perceptions, hopes and aspirations in relation to the costs and benefits of mineral resource development. Nevertheless, opportunities for mutual gain exist. Open, transparent dialogue on these differences will provide a basis for establishing constructive partnerships that minimize conflict and deliver mutually beneficial outcomes. To be effective the dialogue should: Address stakeholders initial perceptions and expectations, in addition to using studies focused on data-based findings. To understand the sources of discontent and conflict, stakeholders need to understand initial perceptions and expectations in addition to facts and data about value creation. Focus on creating a better understanding of stakeholder groups and their drivers of value. This requires a holistic view of value taking into account its cultural, psychological and environmental as well as economic
Exhibit 13: Questions for Stakeholders

aspects. At the same time, both benefits and costs of mining must be taken into account. Identify areas where stakeholder priorities align and differ. This can be done by engaging in frank and constructive dialogue to find not only areas of mutual benefit but also acceptable tradeoffs between stakeholders. Invest in educating all stakeholders including companies, governments, communities and civil society about the nature, sources and timing of benefits, costs and risks of mining. Mismatches between stakeholder expectations and reality need to be addressed through a mutual understanding of the drivers of value, including country-specific structural and enabling factors. Explore ways to increase collaboration within and between stakeholder groups. Mutual value creation requires longterm partnerships that are sustainable beyond the election cycle. Collaboration is required not just between stakeholder groups but also within the groups.

Exhibit 13 lists five questions stakeholders could ask themselves in relation to these findings.

Mining Executives
1. Do you understand what drives value for other stakeholders and their current perceptions and expectations? 2. Have you entered into multistakeholder consultation in order to communicate your needs and priorities, and understand those of others? 3. Have you invested in educating local communities and regional governments in creating a better understanding of sources and timing of value from the industry? 4. Have you identified dimensions which are win-wins for all stakeholders, and had explicit discussions about tradeoffs? 5. Have you considered how you can better coordinate with partners like other mining companies in areas like infrastructure and supply?

Mining Ministers
1. Do you understand the key structural and enabling factors affecting the ability to generate value in your country? 2. Do you understand the needs and priorities of mining companies, investors and mining-affected communities? 3. Have you entered into multistakeholder consultation in order to communicate your needs and priorities, and understand those of others? 4. How well are you coordinating with other areas and levels of government to ensure that full benefits are realized from mining? 5. Have you considered how you can engage with the broader population to create a shared understanding of mining-related value?

Local community representatives (including NGO's)


1. Do you understand the different sub-groups within mining communities, and their differing needs and priorities? 2. Do you understand the drivers of value in the industry, enabling you to better guide community expectations? 3. Have you entered into multistakeholder consultation in order to communicate your needs and priorities, and understand those of others? 4. Can you identify priorities for your constituents which can also be win-wins for government and companies? 5. Have you identified institutions within the community that can effectively engage with mining companies to create long-term partnerships?

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

17

The Way Forward

The next step on the RMDI journey is to apply these findings and the techniques developed to address the main challenges. MVM will be used in multistakeholder platforms at a national and project level to identify, debate and take action on miningrelated issues.
Exhibit 14: The RMDI Journey

2010
Defining the challenges

2011

2012

2013 +

Practical solutions Country-level impact

Common challenges across countries identified

Six building blocks of responsible development categorized, outlining practical actions Mineral Value Management framework devised to align stakeholders on value

RMDI multistakeholder platforms created to provide forum for constructive debate and support for mutuallyagreed actions Chile, Peru, Mongolia, Guinea and Mozambique named target countries

The platforms provide the opportunity to develop an in-country secretariat and steering committee made up of government, resource companies and civil society representatives, with the objective of: Providing a neutral setting for dialogue and collaboration between stakeholders supported by both perception-based studies (e.g. MVM) and data-based studies (e.g. ICMM MPD toolkit) Leading to multistakeholder ownership of the way forward, including agreement on criteria for success and roles and responsibilities of government, companies, civil society and development agencies Leading to the establishment of a formal, ongoing process to ensure local ownership of implementation and tracking of actions Supporting other existing initiatives in countries (e.g. the formulation of Country Mining Visions under the African Mining Vision initiative)
18 Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Success will depend on support and ongoing commitment to action from all stakeholder groups, particularly governments. Dialogues are already being established in Chile and Peru. Chiles was set up after an RMDI round table in 2011 and is using the six building blocks developed in Phase II to guide the development of practical actions. A dialogue in Peru will take place at the World Economic Forum on Latin America in April 2013. Other countries of focus include Guinea, Mongolia and Mozambique.

Appendix

Benchmarking Country Performance


The MVM framework was used to conduct a benchmarking study drawing on publicly available data to create 14 separate metrics to measure direct value creation from the point of view of countries and commodity producers in mineral-rich countries (one metric for each of the seven dimensions for countries and commodity producers). The benchmarking in the RMDI workshops will be used for two purposes: Compare the data-based benchmarks of stakeholders perceptions to identify areas of alignment and differences Enable comparisons between other resource-rich nations on how value is being created in some countries compared to others, and promote discussions around potential opportunities The selected metrics reflect what drives value for each stakeholder group. For example, for countries, the metric for employment and skills is the number of jobs created by the mining industry. For commodity producers it is a measure of the available skills and flexibility of the labour market. Between 17 and 33 countries were included in benchmarking for each dimension (with the number depending on data availability). To allow comparisons between the survey data, those that ranked the highest scored 4 while the lowest rank scored 0 (Appendix 2 has further details). The benchmarking is not intended as an index of value creation between countries. It measures only direct value, excluding the multiplier and diversification impacts that can be major contributors to some value dimensions. In addition, the metrics do not fully reflect all the factors important to stakeholders. For example, the employment metric for countries does not include skill levels or incomes from mining activities both of which are important for governments. Exhibit 15 demonstrates how this benchmarking can be used for the second purpose, showing results for six mineralrich countries grouped by the main type of commodity produced. The exhibit shows that mining creates value in different countries in different ways, influenced by both structural and enabling factors.

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

19

Exhibit 15: Benchmarking Analysis


Note: Directional only dimensions benchmarked relative to other mineral-rich countries. Metrics chosen for each dimension may not accurately reflect all country conditions.

Countries
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills

Commodity producers
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills

Iron Ore

0
Downstream

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

0
Downstream

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

+2
Procurement & supply

+2
Procurement & supply

+4

+4

Brazil

Canada

Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills Infrastructure

Fiscal, leg. & reg Employment & skills

Copper

0
Downstream

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

0
Downstream

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

+2
Procurement & supply

+2
Procurement & supply

+4

+4

Mongolia
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills

Chile
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills

Gold / Platinum / Silver

0
Downstream

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

0
Downstream

Environ. & biodiversity Socio-econ. & culture

+2
Procurement & supply

+2
Procurement & supply

+4

+4

Peru

South Africa

Key : 0 Country ranks lowest in the world for value creation in this dimension 2 Average value creation in this dimension 4 Country ranks among the highest in the world for value creation in this dimension

Some of the structural impacts can be seen in the ways countries rank in the employment & skills and downstream & beneficiation dimensions. For example, Canada and Chile both create a relatively large amount of value from mining, but their ratings for these dimensions are relatively low. This possibly reflects the fact that their economies are diversified, with job creation outside mining, and also have fewer natural structural advantages in becoming a manufacturing base. In contrast, South Africa creates more employment from mining relative to other countries, largely because of its labour-intensive platinum industry. Other scores may be more influenced by enabling factors. For example, commodity producers ratings for the fiscal, legal and regulatory dimension in a particular country reflect their views on the tax regime as
20 Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

well as the efficiency and transparency of regulatory and legal processes. Brazil ranks lower than Chile on this dimension, possibly indicating that commodity producers would like Brazil to improve in areas such as the governance, structure and complexity of public institutions. Benchmarking Methodology and Limitations Purpose The objective of the benchmarking is to provide a starting point for discussion and a way of comparing stakeholder expectations. Methodology Metrics The benchmarking is based on secondary data sources using 14 metrics which represent direct value

creation for both countries and commodity producers across the seven dimensions of value in the MVM. The metrics are all based on publicly available information and are a mix of economic data, country indices and other survey data (refer to Exhibit 17). In some cases, a weighted average of a number of metrics has been used because there are a number of drivers of value in each dimension

Exhibit 16: Benchmark Metrics

Countries:

Metrics

Primary sources
Mining tax receipts Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (EITI ) country reports (2006-10) International Monetary Fund (IMF) "Fiscal regimes for extractives development", 2012 Press research Mining production value ICMM, Mining Contribution Index Number of employees Various government and industry reports Mining production value ICMM, Mining Contribution Index Yale environmental performance index rank (2012)

No. of benchmarks

Fiscal & legal / regulatory environment

(US$ mining tax, royalty and dividend receipts / US$ mining production value) %

18

2 3

Employment & skills

(Number of direct employees in mining industry / US$ mining production value) %

17

Environment & biodiversity Socio-economic environment, culture and social cohesion Procurement and local supply chain

Yale environmental performance index rank

33

Weighted averaged of indicators from indices of social development. Indicators included: Inter-group cohesion Inter-personal safety & trust Inclusion of minorities

Institute of Social Studies ( ISS ) indices of social development

40

Number of companies listed in supplier database per US$ of mining production value

Number of companies Informine supplier database Mining production value ICMM, Mining Contribution Index Export/production data by type RMG database UN Comtrade database Chilean Copper Commission annual yearbook ICSG Statistical Yearbook Mining production value ICMM, Mining Contribution Index World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2012-13

17

Beneciation & downstream industry

(US$ Raw materials exports / US$ mining production value) %

25

Infrastructure

Infrastructure ranking (Total) Global competitors report

33

Commodity producers:
Metrics Fiscal & legal / regulatory environment
Weighted average of indicators from Fraser Survey: Taxation regimes Regulatory & administration uncertainty Regulatory duplications & inconsistencies Legal system Weighted average of indicators from Global Competitiveness Report. Indicators included: Health, primary & higher education, training, labour market efciency Weighted average of Fraser Survey results: Environmental regulations Environmental protection Weighted average of Fraser Survey results. Indicators included: Socio-economic agreements Disputed land claims Weighted average of indicators from Global Competitiveness Report. Indicators included: Local supplier quality and quantity, state of cluster development, intensity of local competition Weighted average of Fraser survey results. Indicators included: tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, currency restrictions, limits on prot repatriation Infrastructure ranking (overalll) Global Competitiveness Report

Data sources

No. of benchmarks

Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2011-12

31

Employment & skills

World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2012-13

33

Environment & biodiversity Socio-economic environment, culture and social cohesion

Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2011-12

31

Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2011-12

31

Procurement & supply chain

World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2012-13

33

Beneciation & downstream industry

Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2011-12

31

Infrastructure

World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2012-13

33

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

21

Countries included Only countries with a significant existing or potential mining industry were included in the benchmarking. Scoring The benchmark uses a relative score from 0 to 4. This matches the same scoring used in the perception survey. The scores were calculated by ranking the countries included in each metric. The countries with the highest rank scored 4 and the lowest 0. The remaining countries were allocated proportionately along the 0-4 scale.

Limitations A number of limitations should be considered when interpreting the benchmarking results: Data availability is limited. For some dimensions, very limited public data is available, particularly in the areas of taxes received from the mining industry, direct employment created by the industry and the size of downstream and supply industries. Some data may not be directly comparable. For the Fiscal and Employment dimensions, limited data meant it was necessary to rely on different sources for some countries, meaning they may not be directly comparable owing to different definitions and assumptions made by publishers of the data. Metrics may not reflect all aspects of a dimension. In many of the dimensions, value has many aspects and the metrics do not always take this into account. For example, the Employment & Skills dimension for countries only measures the number of employees per dollar of mining production, and excludes their salaries, working conditions, etc. Metrics only try to measure direct value. They do not include multiplier or diversification impacts.

Owing to these limitations, the benchmarking should be considered a work in progress and the Forum will continue to update it as more data becomes available. It also highlights the need for better data in the industry overall, particularly in relation to the amount of taxes, royalties and dividends paid and received. This has been recognized by many organizations including the International Monetary Fund, Revenue Watch and EITI, and work is progressing in this area.

22

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Further Survey Results, Methodology and Respondent Details

Further Survey Results Exhibit 17 contains further results of the survey, showing respondents perceptions of value today and in the future by stakeholder and region.

Exhibit 17: Perceptions of Current and Potential Value Creation by Region and Stakeholder1
Source: RMDI survey conducted between October 2012 and January 2013

Area

Governments
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills
0 +2

Commodity producers
Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure
0 +2

Others 2
Fiscal, leg. & reg

Employment & skills Environ. & bio-diversity Socio-econ. & culture

Infrastructure
0 +2

Employment & skills Environ. & bio-diversity Socio-econ. & culture

Africa

Downstream Procurement & supply

Environ. & bio-diversity Socio-econ. & culture

Downstream Procurement & supply

Downstream Procurement & supply

+4

+4

+4

Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills


0 +2

Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure


0 +2

Fiscal, leg. & reg Employment & skills Environ. & bio-diversity Infrastructure
0 +2

Employment & skills Environ. & bio-diversity Socio-econ. & culture

Asia

Downstream Procurement & supply

Environ. & bio-diversity Socio-econ. & culture

Downstream Procurement & supply

Downstream Procurement & supply

+4

+4

Socio-econ. & culture

+4

Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills


0 +2

Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure


0 +2

Fiscal, leg. & reg Employment & skills Environ. & bio-diversity Infrastructure
0 +2

Employment & skills Environ. & bio-diversity Socio-econ. & culture

Latin America

Downstream Procurement & supply

Environ. & bio-diversity Socio-econ. & culture

Downstream Procurement & supply

Downstream Procurement & supply

+4

+4

Socio-econ. & culture

+4

Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure Employment & skills


0 +2

Fiscal, leg. & reg Infrastructure


0 +2

Fiscal, leg. & reg Employment & skills Environ. & bio-diversity Infrastructure
0 +2

Employment & skills Environ. & bio-diversity Socio-econ. & culture

Others 3

Downstream Procurement & supply

Environ. & bio-diversity Socio-econ. & culture

Downstream Procurement & supply

Downstream Procurement & supply

+4

+4

Socio-econ. & culture

+4

Key : 0 country ranks lowest in the world for value creation in this dimension 2 average value creation in this dimension 4 country ranks amongst the highest in the world for value creation in this dimension
1

Perceived value today Expected future value (in 10 years)

Respondents were asked to rate how much value was being created currently in each dimension for their stakeholder group, and the potential value in 10 years time relative to other mineral-rich countries 2 Stakeholder group Others includes NGOs, academics, international agencies and local communities 3 Includes respondents from Australia, North America and Europe
Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013 23

Methodology and Respondent Details Timing The survey was conducted between October 2012 and January 2013. An online questionnaire was sent out between December and January. Paper questionnaires were completed at RMDI workshops in October and November 2012.19 Respondents Stakeholders: commodity producers (mining companies), governments and others (local communities, NGOs, academics, international agencies). The majority of respondents work in or are affected by the mining sector. Geographies: Asia, Latin America, Africa, other (North America, Australia, Europe).

Survey Content All respondents were asked: About their perceptions of value creation across the seven dimensions, in their country relative to other counties, today and in 10 years time 20 To rank the dimensions in order of priority for them. Those who completed the paper survey were asked to identify the top two only Online respondents were also asked: To identify if the largest areas for improvement in their top two priority dimensions were in the direct or multiplier/diversification areas To identify the top three structural and enabling factors for each of their top two priority dimensions

Exhibit 18: Respondents by Region and Stakeholder Group

35 1 3 1 30 12 6 2 4 16 3 1 12 17 13 2 2

24 11 4 2 7 35 16 8 11 29 13 8 8 23 7 8 8

28 7 4 4 13 26 4 8 14 30 12 13 5 25 9 10 6 109

>20

11-20

0-10

1. Stakeholder group Others includes NGOs, academics, international agencies and local communities

24

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Overview of Stakeholder Consultation


This research is the culmination of Phase III of the World Economic Forums Responsible Mineral Development Initiative, launched in 2009. The three phases of the initiative have relied on extensive stakeholder consultation to source ideas and test concepts. A list of these consultations is provided below: 2010 Australia, country-specific interviews Brazil, country-specific interviews Chile, country-specific interviews Colombia, country-specific interviews Ghana, country-specific interviews India, India Economic Summit, November Lao PDR, country-specific interviews Liberia, country-specific interviews Mongolia, country-specific interviews Mongolia, RMDI roundtable, June Papua New Guinea, country-specific interviews Peru, country-specific interviews South Africa, country-specific interviews Tanzania, country-specific interviews United Arab Emirates, World Economic Forum Annual Global Agenda Council meeting, November

2011 Australia, Sustainable Development Conference, October Brazil, World Economic Forum on Latin America, April Indonesia, Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative board meeting, November Indonesia, World Bank on Transparency Norms, November Indonesia, World Economic Forum on East Asia, June Mongolia, RMDI workshop, March Peru, RMDI workshop on Peru, December South Africa, RMDI workshop, February South Africa, World Economic Forum on Africa, May Switzerland, RMDI workshop at Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals and Sustainable Development, November United Arab Emirates, World Economic Forum Annual Global Agenda Council Meeting, October United Kingdom, International Council on Mining and Metals meetings, March and October United Kingdom, World Economic Forum Mining & Metals Strategy Meeting, November United States, RMDI workshop in collaboration with the World Bank, December

2012/13 Ethiopia, RMDI, private event, World Economic Forum on Africa, May Switzerland, Mineral Value Management, workshop, Mining & Metals Strategy Meeting, October Ethiopia, Mineral Value Management in the African context, workshop, African Development Forum, October India, Mineral Value Management in India, private event, World Economic Forum on India, November Global survey on Mineral Value Management, online, November and December Switzerland, Mineral Value Management, private event, World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, January Canada, maximizing the Value of Extractives for Development, CIDA and World Economic Forum, March Peru, Mineral Value Management, private event and report launch, World Economic Forum on Latin America, April

Exhibit 19: RMDI Consultations

Phase I 2010

Phase II 2011

Phase III 2012

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

25

Acknowledgements
The World Economic Forum thanks the members of the Mining and Metals Steering Board, the RMDI Advisory Group and the Global Agenda Council on Responsible Mineral Resource Management for their contribution. World Economic Forum Mining and Metals Steering Board 2012 Tom Albanese, Chief Executive, Rio Tinto, United Kingdom (Chair) Cynthia Carroll, Chief Executive, Anglo American, United Kingdom Mark Cutifani, Chief Executive Officer, AngloGold Ashanti, South Africa Klaus Kleinfeld, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Alcoa, USA Patrice T. Motsepe, Founder and Executive Chairman, African Rainbow Minerals, South Africa Richard OBrien*, President and Chief Executive Officer, Newmont Mining Corporation, USA
*Also a member of the RMDI Advisory Committee

RMDI Advisory Committee Britt Banks*, Adjunct Professor, University of Colorado, USA (Chair) Arlin Hackman, Senior Conservation Advisor, WWF-Canada Gavin Hayman, Campaigns Director, Global Witness, United Kingdom Huguette Labelle*, Chair, Transparency International, Germany Kathryn McPhail, Director, Social & Economic Development, International Council on Mining and Metals, United Kingdom Kate Carmichael, Manager, Social & Economic Development, International Council on Mining and Metals, United Kingdom Richard OBrien, President and Chief Executive Officer, Newmont Mining Corporation, USA Antonio A.M. Pedro*, Director, Subregional Office for Eastern Africa, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Rwanda Tsagaan Puntsag*, Chief of Staff, Office of the President of Mongolia
*Also a member of the Global Agenda Council on the Future of Mining & Metals

Britt D. Banks , Adjunct Professor, School of Law, University of Colorado, USA (Chair) Edwin Basson, Director-General, World Steel Association, Belgium Beatriz Boza Dibos, Chairperson, Ciudadanos al Da, Peru David Clarke, Vice-President, ArcelorMittal, Netherlands Stephen Desposito III, President, RESOLVE, USA Marketa D. Evans, Counsellor, Corporate Social Responsibility, Extractive Sector, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, Canada R. Anthony Hodge, President, International Council on Mining and Metals, United Kingdom (Vice-Chair) Janet Kong, Managing Director, Research Department, China International Capital Corporation (Hong Kong), Hong Kong SAR Huguette Labelle, Chair, Transparency International, Germany Anna Littleboy, Deputy Director, Minerals Down Under National Research Flagship, Commonwealth Science and Industry Research Organisation, Australia Bruce McKenney, Director, Strategy, Development by Design, The Nature Conservancy, USA Henry Medina, Vice-Minister of Mines of Colombia Ligia Noronha, Senior Fellow and Executive Director, Research Coordination and Director, Resources and Global Security Division, The Energy and Resources Institute, India Antonio A.M. Pedro, Director, Subregional Office for Eastern Africa, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, Rwanda Michael H. Solomon, Chairman, Mineral Economics Committee, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, South Africa Teng Liliang, Chief Marketing Officer, China-Africa Development Fund, Peoples Republic of China Tsagaan Puntsag, Chief of Staff, Office of the President, Mongolia Further Contributions In interviews and reviewing case studies and initiatives: Vicky Bowman, Global Practice Leader, External Affairs, Rio Tinto, United Kingdom Sue Cooke, Executive, Research and Knowledge Management, Royal Bafokeng Nation, South Africa Tarrah DArenzo, Chief of Staff, Sustainability and External Affairs, Newmont Mining Corporation, USA Luke Davidson, President, Sustainable Development Strategies Group, USA

Adrian Fozzard, Lead Public Sector Specialist, Public Sector & Governance, World Bank, Washington DC Tyler Gillard, Legal Expert, Investment Division, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, OECD, Paris Scott Gilmore, President, Anchor Chain, Canada Jonathan Hobbs, Senior Adviser, Responsible Trade and Investment, WWF, Tanzania Paul Kapelus, Director, Synergy Global Consulting, South Africa Raphael Kaplinsky, Professor of International Development, The Open University, United Kingdom David Ovadia, Managing Director, BGS International, United Kingdom Yedwa Simelane, Senior Vice-President, Corporate Affairs, AngloGold Ashanti, South Africa Joseph Stiglitz, Professor, Columbia University, USA In addition, acknowledgement and thanks go to all those who participated in meetings and workshops on RMDI in 2012-2013 and those who completed the Mineral Value Management Survey. From our Advisory Partner, The Boston Consulting Group (BCG): Amit Ganeriwalla, Partner and Director, India Knutt Haanes, Global Head of Strategy, Partner and Managing Director, Switzerland Alex Koch, Partner and Managing Director, Australia Philip Krinks, Senior Adviser, United Kingdom John Linqvuist, Senior Adviser, United Kingdom Grant McCabe, Partner and Managing Director, Australia Marco Di Marino, Senior Associate, Australia Lauren Davis, Consultant, USA In addition, the project team expresses its gratitude to the following World Economic Forum colleagues for their support throughout the project: Robert Greenhill, Managing Director, Chief of Business Officer, Centre for Business Engagement Margareta Drzeniek, Director and Senior Economist, Global Benchmarking Network Nadia Buhna, Team Coordinator, Mining & Metals Irina Dhowtalut, Senior Team Coordinator, Mining & Metals

Global Agenda Council on Responsible Mineral Resource Management Anthony Andrews, Principal, RMD - Responsible Mineral Development Consultants Inc., Canada (Vice-Chair) Jorge Bande, Member of the Board, Corporacin Nacional del Cobre de Chile (CODELCO), Chile

26

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Project Team
Britt Banks, Adjunct Professor, School of Law, University of Colorado, USA Guido Battaglia, Community Manager, Mining & Metals Industry, World Economic Forum Jose Garcia, Senior Community Manager, Mining & Metals Industry, World Economic Forum Roland Haslehner, Partner and Managing Director, The Boston Consulting Group, Austria Martin Hayden, Project Manager, Mining & Metals Industry, World Economic Forum Michael Tost, Associate Director, Head of Mining & Metals Industry, World Economic Forum Alex Wong, Senior Director, Head of Centre for Business Engagement, World Economic Forum

Acronyms and Overview of Exhibits


List of Acronyms BCG FDI EITI GCI GDP HIV IADB ICMM MDC MVM NGO RMDI List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Six Building Blocks of Responsible Mineral Development 5 Exhibit 2: Examples of Recent Conflicts and Policy Debates 6 Exhibit 3: Seven Dimensions of Value 7 Exhibit 4: Structural and Enabling Factors 8 Exhibit 5: Perceptions of Current and Potential Value Creation African Respondents 9 Exhibit 6: Perceptions of Current and Potential Value Creation by Country Type 10 Exhibit 7: Enabling Factors Quality of Public Institutions 11 Exhibit 8: Ranking of Priority Dimensions (Based on percentage of Times Ranked 1st or 2nd ) 11 Exhibit 9: Fiscal, Legal and Regulatory Enabling Factors (percentage of Times Ranked in Top 3) 12 Exhibit 10: Stakeholder Ranking of Downstream and Infrastructure (Based on percentage of times ranked 1st or 2nd) 14 Exhibit 11: Industry Cost Structures (Rubber Gloves versus Tyres) 14 Exhibit 12: Top 3 Enabling Factors Nominated by Respondents 15 Exhibit 13: Questions for Stakeholders 17 Exhibit 14: The RMDI Journey 18 Exhibit 15: Benchmarking Analysis 20 Exhibit 16: Benchmark Metrics 21 Exhibit 17: Perceptions of Current and Potential Value Creation by Region and Stakeholder 23 Exhibit 18: Respondents by Region and Stakeholder Group 24 Exhibit 19: RMDI Consultations 25

The Boston Consulting Group Foreign Direct Investment Extractives Industry Transparency Initiative Global Competitiveness Index (World Economic Forum) Gross Domestic Product Human Immunodeficiency Virus Inter-American Development Bank International Council on Mining & Metals Maputo Development Corridor Mineral Value Management Non-Governmental Organization Responsible Mineral Development Initiative

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

27

Bibliography, Sources and Endnotes


Benchmark Sources Chambers of Mines of South Africa Facts about South Africa Mining Minings contribution to South Africa, 2012 Chilean Commission of Copper (COCHILCO) Yearbook: Copper and Other Mineral Statistics, 2010 Datamonitor Base Metals in Peru, 2011 Extractives Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) Country Reports (various) (www.eiti.org) Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies 2011-12 Indices of Social Development (ISS) (http://www.indsocdev.org/) Infomine - supplier database (http://www.infomine.com/suppliers/) International Copper Study Group (ICSG) - Statistical Yearbook, 2011 International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM) Partnerships for Development country case studies (Brazil, Chile, Ghana, Lao, Peru) International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM) The Role of Mining in National Economies, 2012 International Monetary Fund (IMF) Fiscal Regimes for Extractives Development, 2012 MarketLine Industry Profile Precious Metals & Minerals in Peru, 2012 Peruvian Economic institute Effect of mining over-employment, production and collections in Peru Raw Materials Group (RMG) database (www.rmg.se) School of Economic Studies, National University of Mongolia and BAEconomics Pty Ltd The development of Oyu Tolgoi copper mine: An assessment of the macroeconomic consequences for Mongolia, 2011 The Brazilian Mining Association (IBRAM) Information and Analyses of The Brazilian Minerals Economy, 2011 US Geological Survey (USGS) various Country Minerals Workbooks United Nations Comtrade database (http://comtrade.un.org/db/) World Bank Group - Country GDP and Tax revenues World Economic Forum - Global Competitiveness Report 2012-13 Yale University - Environmental Performance Index, 2012 (www.epi.yale.edu) Further press / Web research

References and Other Sources African Sociological Review The impact of regional integration initiatives and investment in a southern African cross border region: The Maputo Development Corridor, 2008 Alliance Research Rubber Global Sector Update, 2012 BGS International, part of International Geoscience Services (IGS) Ltd (on behalf of World Bank Group) Geodata for Development. A Practical Approach, 2012 BHP Billiton Sustainability Report 2011 Case Studies, 2011 Campbell M, Maritz J, Hauptfleisch D. The Impact of the Maputo Development Corridor on Wealth Creation Within the Region it Serves, University of the Free State and the CSIR Built Environment Chilean Economic Development Agency Mining Cluster in Chile CIMB Research Report Rubber Gloves Packing a Punch, 2009 Ernst & Young Business Risks in Mining & Metals, 2012-13 Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (http://faostat.fao.org/) Instituto Peruano de Economia Effect of mining over employment, production and collections in Peru, 2012 International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM) Partnerships for Development country case studies (Brazil, Chile, Ghana, Lao, Peru) International Council on Mining & Metals (ICMM) The Role of Mining in National Economies, 2012 International Finance Corporation A guide to getting started in local procurement Mineweb (www.mineweb.com) Newmont Ghana Gold Limited (NGGL) The Socio-economic Impact of Newmont Ghana Gold Limited (NGGL), 2011 Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada Government geoscience to support mineral exploration: public policy rationale and impact, 2010 Responsible Mineral Development Initiative Phase I Research Report, 2010 Responsible Mineral Development Initiative Phase II Research Report, 2011 SocialLicence.com (www.sociallicense.com) The Bench Marks Foundation Communities in the Platinum Minefields Policy Gap 6, 2011 The Boston Consulting Group From Wealth to Well-being Sustainable Economic Development Assessment, 2012 The Natural Resource Charter (http://naturalresourcecharter.org/)

Morris M, Kaplinsky R, Kaplan D One Thing Leads to Another Making the Most of the Commodities Boom in SubSaharan Africa, 2012 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development Extractive Industries: Optimising Value Retention in Host Countries, 2012 United Nations Industrial Development Organisation Promoting Industrial Diversification in Resource Intensive Economies The Experience of Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia Regions University of CapeTown Institutional Aspects of the Maputo Development Corridor 2001 World Bank Increasing Local Procurement in the Mining Industry in West Africa, 2012 World Bank Group Resource Corridors/Diversification - World Bank Report E4D Washington Regional Consultation, 2012 World Bank Group Extractive Industries Source Book, (www.eisourcebook.org) World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report, 2008-13 World Economic Forum Strategic Infrastructure: Steps to Prioritize and Deliver Infrastructure Effectively and Efficiently, 2012 Further press / Web research

28

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

Endnotes RMDI Phase I (2010) report is available at http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_MM_ RMDI_Report_2010.pdf and RMDI Phase II (2011) at http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ WEF_MM_Report_2011.pdf
1

Dr Paul Jourdan, Co-author, African National Congress State Intervention in the Minerals Sector report. Source: mineweb. com, June 2012
2

World Economic Forum Mining & Metals Strategy Meeting, October 2012
3

MCLI official website (http://www.mcli. co.za/index.htm); Campbell M, Maritz J, Hauptfleisch D The Impact of the Maputo Development Corridor on Wealth Creation Within the Region it Serves, University of the Free State and the CSIR Built Environment; University of Cape Town Institutional Aspects of the Maputo Development Corridor 2001; African Sociological Review The impact of regional integration initiatives and investment in a southern African cross border region: The Maputo Development Corridor, 2008
16

Based on data collected for Fiscal, Legal & Regulatory Benchmarking Analysis in Phase III
4

Based on data collected for Employment & Skills Benchmarking Analysis in Phase III
5

BHP Billiton Ltd Sustainability Report 2011 Case Studies, 2011; Chilean Economic Development Agency Mining Cluster in Chile; ICMM (2007) Chile the Challenge of Mineral Wealth; Company sources; BCG
17

International Council on Mining and Metals Partnerships for Development Country Case Studies (various), World Bank Group, Large mines and the Community, Newmont Ghana Gold Limited (NGGL), The Socio-Economic Impact of Newmont, Instituto Peruano de Economia Effect of mining over employment, production and collections in Peru, BCG analysis
6

A specific limitation of the country Fiscal, legal and regulatory dimension was data on the amount of tax, royalties and dividends paid to the government by the mining industry. In many cases the data were available for 1-2 years, meaning that the amounts received may not be representative for the entire mining cycle
18

Example: Rio Tinto has made a public commitment to biodiversity conservation and a goal of having a net positive impact on biodiversity. See http://www.riotinto. com/documents/ReportsPublications/ RTBidoversitystrategyfinal.pdf
7

Aurecon, Mining Infrastructure from Pit to Port


8

Workshops where the survey was conducted: Mining & Metals Strategy Meeting, Geneva, 18 October 2012 (59 respondents); RMDI Private Meeting, African Development Forum, Addis Ababa 22 October 2012 (8 respondents), RMDI Private Meeting, World Economic Forum on India, 8 November 2012 (22 respondents)
19

Refer to The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-13 page 10 for full listing of countries by stage of development (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf)
9

Refer to The Global Competitiveness Report 2012-13 page 8 for further details (http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ GlobalCompetitivenessReport_2012-13.pdf)
10

We acknowledge that in some cases causality between public institutions and FDI may be reversed (i.e. increased FDI leads to improved public institutions)
11

Morris M, Kaplinsky R, Kaplan D, One Thing Leads to Another Making the most of the Commodities Boom in Sub-Saharan Africa. Downloadable at: http://tinyurl.com/ CommoditiesBook 13 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting, Mining & Metals Private Meeting, January 2013
12 14 15

The paper questionnaire asked stakeholders about the six dimensions of value, with the environment and social dimensions combined. Based on consultation, these dimensions were subsequently split, resulting in seven dimensions. To include the paper survey results as part of the overall survey, the following steps were taken (i) the current and future scores were assumed to be the same between the environment and social dimensions (ii) the number of responses where the environment/social dimension was among the top-two priorities were split based on the proportion of times the two dimensions were nominated among top-two priorities in the online survey (broken down by stakeholder and region)
20

Faostat.org

Alliance Research, Rubber Glove sector initiation Feb 2012

Responsible Mineral Development Initiative 2013

29

The World Economic Forum is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a not-for-profit foundation in 1971 and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the Forum is tied to no political, partisan or national interests.

World Economic Forum 9193 route de la Capite CH-1223 Cologny/Geneva Switzerland Tel.: +41 (0) 22 869 1212 Fax: +41 (0) 22 786 2744 contact@weforum.org www.weforum.org